Husker_x

Good thing we have about two minutes and all of our timeouts. Oh wait.

What an embarrassment. This is the best we can field after two weeks of preparation.

God our offense . . .

Jake should not bother suiting up from here on.

Very disappointing start, but a lot of football left.

No worries. Considering how many paragraphs I've stacked in this forum on this topic, who am I to tell someone else to hurry? And sorry about the headaches. Hope they don't keep you down too long. If you expect me to believe claims––yours or anyone else's––about a god's existence and/or directives, there had better be some reason. And if God wants me (or anyone) to believe he exists, then what's the hangup? The Christian God is reportedly "outside of the universe," or our consciousness, but 1) he is also reported to have regularly intervened in history for the express purpose of displaying his existence to certain people, 2) is capable of manifesting again should he choose to, and 3) this God has only my consciousness as a point of contact, where the totality of my experience ultimately resides. So he'll have to figure something out. The analogy to literature strikes me as shaky for a few reasons. First, the texts you cited were deliberate works of fiction. Their purpose may or may not have been to reveal something about the author. Regardless, there will always be an impassable gap between what the author intended and what the reader (or audience member at the Globe in Shakespeare's case) perceives. The Bible is not––so it is claimed––a work of fiction. Its purpose is to provide a reliable account of God's actions, character, motivation, and desires. Sadly it cannot do this for a variety of reasons. We'll come to that shortly. I take issue with the first statement. I am not a hard atheist––in fact, I'm not sure I've ever met one. I do not claim to be certain there is no god. I see no evidence for one. That's a crucial distinction. But I've heard Christians use this sort of logic before, and I don't understand how they arrive at it. How by claiming certainty that the Christian God is false would I suddenly become God? I wouldn't be able to part the red sea, feed the five thousand with a few fish and loaves, walk on water (or turn it into wine), create a universe, or kill a fig tree by talking to it. About the multiverse: that is a hypothesis. There is some evidence to suggest our universe may not be the only one. I'd look at Lawrence Krauss's work if you'd like the details, but there is no conclusive proof, and not one prominent scientist I'm aware of has claimed it certainly exists. It takes no faith to put forward a testable hypothesis; quite the opposite, actually. It takes faith, sola fide, to posit the supernatural as an explanation for natural phenomena we observe. That is why Creationism is not an explanation; merely a dogmatic claim lacking evidence or those who even expect to find any. If the multiverse hypothesis fails, it fails. No one swears absolute allegiance to it or stakes their life on faith in its existence. Not anyone who wants to remained an employed scientist, anyway. This is really the crux of the issue. One thing that is remarkable about these four witnesses is how circular they really are in practice. I've mentioned this before, but I once met a Mormon who literally claimed to see Jesus in his living room (stranger even than this claim is how unperturbed Christians are by it when I bring it up, given our problems with evidence and such). Before we got to that part, he handed me a Book of Mormon and said that if I read it and prayed sincerely enough, God would reveal himself to me. The Catch-22 of the situation was not at all obvious to him: if I prayed and God revealed himself, he was real. If I prayed and God did not reveal himself to me, I was not sincere enough. This was like a shittier Las Vegas. The House literally never loses. But let's look at these four witnesses. 1. Creation. A poor choice of words because it stacks the deck, but anyway, it is evident to me that I occupy a physical reality that I and others can interact with and describe––in speech or writing, in physics and mathematics, and in ways that basically predict what will happen (what goes up comes down) by collecting data and finding patterns. It is probably true that most people who look at the staggering immensity of the universe have no other means of explaining it than: "Well . . . someone must have made it this way." But this is an inclination, an assertion, not based in fact. How many people have this feeling is irrelevant. If God is real and he did create the universe, one of the design features is his apparent absence. Equally irrelevant is the presence of pain and suffering in our experience. The only one with any explaining to do about why there is pain and suffering in the world is a religious person. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Nothing more. I can give you a series of very simple reasons why pain and suffering exist––most of them related to your central nervous system––but as to why they exist in the first place, the question presumes there is a reason. What if there isn't? I say again, this is only a problem for a religious person. Why does Jesus allow tsunamis to sweep away hundreds of thousands of people––typically heathen––men, women and children all destined to continue suffering forever after their deaths because they were unfortunate enough to be born into cultures with similar but incorrect versions of gods? 2. A sense of injustice stems mostly from incidental features of our species. Humans are apes. Like dogs, apes are a social species. We derive a share of our pleasure in the world from contact with other people. Our senses of empathy and shame (among others) steer the ship of social interaction. My life is directly benefited by the presence of things like justice, law, and compassion. And since this life is the only one I'm reasonably assured of having, however temporary, I am alarmed at injustice and hope for it to vanish even while realizing it won't. I do not require supernatural permission from an invisible person to behave ethically (or to have the desire to behave ethically). 3-4. The scriptures. I was surprised how little explaining this section needed. In my view, this is the point which requires the most explanation. I will include my response to point four here as well, because the only record that provides us potential access to the person of Jesus is the scriptures. What are the scriptures? As they pertain to Jesus specifically, four hand-selected, anonymous, non-eye witness documents created decades after the man himself was rumored to have died. Not a word of them can be corroborated by other sources, not even the existence of Jesus as a historical figure. They contain wild accounts of magical powers and deeds not all that far off from our modern fantasy genre. Some of the claims are historically absurd. These texts had the misfortune of appearing in a time and place where these kinds of gods and stories were common throughout the known world, transmitted orally from one language into another language that subsequently died. The synoptic gospels––Matthew, Mark, and Luke––both plagiarize and contradict each other. Not one original of any gospel (or epistle) survives to this day. Among the existing copies, there are far more variants in the manuscripts than there are words in all of the texts combined. To understand the power of the point I'm making, I refer you back to Knapplc's post, third paragraph. For the moment I hope it is enough to explain why when a religious believer cites scriptural references to back their case, I am unmoved by these witnesses; in fact, they ignite an overwhelming sensation of skepticism about the very thing the scriptures are supposed to give evidence for.

Francis Collins is a genius and the whole world owes him a debt of gratitude, though most people are unaware of who he is or why they should be thanking him. Our descendants could well look at his work on the Human Genome Project as a milestone of human achievement in medicine and our understanding of countless aspects of human nature. Obviously his Christianity did not interfere with his ability to think rationally on the science of genetics. No one, not even his late friend Christopher Hitchens, questioned his scientific credentials. However, when it comes to his theology, or his opinions about religion or God, Francis Collins is no more informed on the subject or qualified to speak intelligently about it than you, me, or anyone else. Working from memory, the reason Collins became a Christian is that one day he was walking in nature and came upon a frozen waterfall split into three branches. The wonder of the sight stirred something inside him, and he dropped to his knees and made a commitment to the Christian faith right on the spot. I don't doubt this story. I don't even doubt Francis Collins experienced something––possibly a transcendent emotion very few people ever have or will experience. What I do doubt is any and every claim he may make regarding this experience, beginning with the idea that his having it is sufficient reason to accept any claims about Jesus or the Bible. Clearly Collins jettisoned a literal reading of Genesis (this I would argue one must do to avoid a conflict between science and religion), but consider for a moment that had an intellect of Collins's caliber happened to be born in Spain in the 1500s and not America in the 1900s, he likely would have been burned to death by his own brethren for merely holding to this now widely-accepted liberal version of Christian doctrine. Capable, intelligent, and earnest as Collins may be, he has failed to do what any scientist, philosopher, or theologian has ever tried to do: present actual evidence for the existence of God. A shame, considering he is perfectly suited to publish the findings.

Who doesn't love clowns? Thanks for your kind comments. I drunkenly vent on HB during the big ones, but when Ameer talks about respecting the game, there is a whole other level to it than one week of one season. Look across the landscape of football. Look at how many great teams, top ten all-this/that teams, get smashed by somebody (or a nobody). Look at how many elite programs like Nebraska are in the toilet. A couple years ago the forecast was not as sunny for our program. We are beginning to do some things right, in my opinion, that we didn't used to. And the attitude of the team is promising. I hope they make the most of the back nine.

And they are on fire right now. They are a dangerous team. We would be foolish to overlook them. The next two weeks must be focused on beating them. +1 A lot of other people have made this observation before. Nebraska is a team that can afford to overlook no one.

I understand the urge to get him more involved with the offense, and frankly we may have no choice with the bludgeoning the WR corps has taken, but in my ideal world, his first, last, and only responsibility is doing what he's doing. And get Ameer the f#ck away from kick returns. He's middling at best, needed elsewhere, and he's dropped two. Ass –––> Bench. Pierson-El is our special teams.

I don't disagree with much of this but, like you say, it's a conversation for the future after the if/whens are sorted out. The willingness the coaches showed to make offseason changes and the general trends in our recruiting still have me optimistic about the future. I never thought we would win a national championship this year (though we had a chance there to be in the conversation). Too many holes, too many injuries. I'm still pleased that the defense is not one of them, and does not look to become one any time soon.

Buckle up. I take forever to say anything, and this one gave me more than I was hoping to digest. If last night's game made you go apesh#t (*sheepishly raises hand*), or despair, or rise from your seat in the waning minutes, take stock of that. The previous two or three seasons have left many Nebraska fans feeling nothing but a detached sense of lethargy. Whatever lays ahead of this team, one thing we can rejoice over is that their character and never-say-die spirit have reenergized the program, which was desperately needed. We have serious problems (we'll have a reality check in a moment). Yet however bad it looked, last night we watched Nebrsaka reach for a dagger, take aim at Michigan State's throat, and miss nicking an artery by this much in their house. That is a far cry from the 63-13 shadow that was creeping over us as it has done for so many seasons. Consistency demands I respect that outcome. (And I don't want to hear a peep about that "they let off the gas" bullsh#t. A football game lasts 60 minutes.) I said before the game that a respectable loss against this opponent was immaterial in the grand scheme of things. I hold to that. We lost close to champions. Others have said that ours is not a championship-caliber team. I agree, but we have enough to get to Indie, and once there, you have a shot. What more can you ask for considering the health of the team? Our defense is approaching stellar despite the gutting of the LB corps, the youth in the secondary, and the series of unfortunate offseason events. They gave us every opportunity to win the game. The offense failed us. Which brings us to the reality check. 1. Our offensive line is horrendous. I cannot recall a more overhyped position group in recent memory than that left side. Cotton's falling on his ass was probably a good thing: it perfectly encapsulates the severity and magnitude of the trouble we're in if we do not improve. Ameer is an incredible athlete, but alas, thou art mortal. I do not have near the expertise to offer specific solutions, but with where we're positioned mid-season, I do want an answer to this question: would burning a redshirt or two change anything? If not, what––if any––viable options are on the table? 2. Beck committed to the run just like I hoped he would in the beginning. And though I was sickened and dismayed by what we saw out there as the game went on, upon further reflection I don't know what any coordinator could have done in-game to correct a line that blocks no one. More to the point, the answer going forward is not to find a new identity. Option/run is our identity. We need to think of the option/run game like a Samurai thinks of swordsmanship or a Spartan thinks of war: it is a philosophy to be mastered with years of complete, uninterrupted focus. Resist all temptation to abandon it. Continue to recruit exclusively to it. 3. This is not a critique of the man himself, but I do not know what Barney Cotton does for a living. We do not have any tight ends. They've been raptured someplace. What I do know is that with the expansion of recruiting personnel, this offseason would be an opportunity to put him to better use and get a QB coach. We need one badly, and have for some time. Throw down six figures and get a pro. A teacher. Beck has gone on record as saying the quarterback is the most difficult and important position in his offense. Act like it with your personnel decisions. 4. We are badly hurt. All over. I can't imagine this defense at full strength. We have enough talent to brawl our way back, but expect to fight tooth and nail. Mainly because . . . 5. Northwestern says hello. This bi-week could not have come at a better time. We have to regroup, rethink a few things offensively, and prepare to finish strong. No one else is close to what we saw last night, but all of them have the talent to sneak away with one. We need to put MSU behind us and return to work on our system. I hope this game does wonders for the defense and the pride they play with. They can hold their heads high.

I do think the question of a QB coach has been opened (if it wasn't already). If it's so instrumental to this offense, why do we have a position coach for invisible tight ends?

Why is Pierson-El not returning kicks? Give him touches.

I feel like we're climbing. Almost fell there for three and 1/2ish quarters, but hung on. People asked to avoid blowouts in big games. Now the narrative is we almost blew past Sparty in their house after playing god awful horribly. Keep working on the run game. Resist all urges to abandon it. Commit to mastering it, however long it takes. I'm fascinated to know what moves are on the table concerning the O-line. How panicked is Bo by this outing? We're hurt. Everywhere. We'll enjoy a talent-injection next season. This loss is not a recruiting disaster. Pierson-El: lightning.

You want a team slogan? Rematch.

I did, too. That's why I switched to Twitter. Had to turn it back on for the last drive, and we had the winning TD in our hands... but couldn't pull it in. Losing this game means we're out of the Playoff hunt. Which is fine, because without significant improvements, we're not a Playoff-caliber team. But if we make some improvements, I like our chances against anyone in this conference here on out. A conference championship would feel awfully nice. And it's totally possible. 100%

We got work to do, but holy hell, that was sweet.

Yup, but they were right at their throats.

Oh my God you guys are making it like the whole night didn't happen. Way to fight.

GTFO, dude. We suck. Stop bitching. They play like champions. We play like ass. Once again the offense collapses and lets an otherwise decent defensive performance get flushed down the toilet. Vintage Beck. Vintage Pelini.

f#*k that.

Aim higher. Much, much higher.